Knocking out Doubler Ball

[MOEmaniac]

my interpretation of the rule is that there the 2x ball is open game because if it wasnt then wat if a robot accidently hit a goal hard enough so that the ball fell off. then it wouldnt be fair to penalize them for an accident

[ngreen]

Messing with your opponents 2x ball will definitely happen. We plan on being able to take the 2x ball out of the opponents stationary goal and returning to our goal.

This decision will have to be based on the worth of that multiplier. It the have 3 balls plus a multiplier and we have 5 balls with no multiplier. It we can move the multiplier from there goal to ours while only getting 3 goaltending flags it would be worth it to us. Not only would you gain more points, your 25+ pts + their 15- pts = 40 pt change - 3 goaltending (10 each) = 10 pt overall advantage, the overall score of the game is increased by 30 to 40 points. Goaltending in this manner isn't particularly detrimental to anyone. Don't get mad at me for saying this again, but these rules kind invite this type of play.

I know I have to take there 2X ball and move it to my goal to win but as a side effect the complete score of the game is raised. Another advantage to the teams removing the ball. I would rather see them enforce a goaltending after 5 to 10 seconds of attempting to remove the ball or a single flag if the ball attempted to be removed and is not removed. This would add the challenge of designing a quick method for removing the ball and not allow someone to drop the ball after nine seconds and get a restart on the ten seconds. It would also get rid of more of the goaltending aspect since most teams would remove the ball within ten seconds.

[Ben Mitchell]

Originally Posted by ngreen

Messing with your opponents 2x ball will definitely happen. We plan on being able to take the 2x ball out of the opponents stationary goal and returning to our goal.

This decision will have to be based on the worth of that multiplier. It the have 3 balls plus a multiplier and we have 5 balls with no multiplier. It we can move the multiplier from there goal to ours while only getting 3 goaltending flags it would be worth it to us. Not only would you gain more points, your 25+ pts + their 15- pts = 40 pt change - 3 goaltending (10 each) = 10 pt overall advantage, the overall score of the game is increased by 30 to 40 points. Goaltending in this manner isn't particularly detrimental to anyone. Don't get mad at me for saying this again, but these rules kind invite this type of play.

Well said.

I think this is definitely a useful strategy, and will almost definitely occur. A solid defense is going to be key.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Ben Mitchell

Well said.

I think this is definitely a useful strategy, and will almost definitely occur. A solid defense is going to be key.

Completely agreed. But in the event that a 2x ball is shoved down into a goal, it may take you longer to pull it out, and goaltending points could add up against you. It will be interesting to see teams' approaches to all the different strategies and see which ones become popular...

[Heretic121]

today at quincy there was a lot of ways of scoring and de-scoring the 2x ball... a few in particular were very good at it...

with the 2x ball thrown into an oppeonets net could be CRITICAL in the begining/middle of the match, where the other team is just starting to get thier small balls into their coralls... capping then would make 1 less goal to shoot at, and if you take out the stationary goal, and THEN take thier small goal to your end... it could make it very hard to score period...

[ngreen]

Originally Posted by Heretic121

today at quincy there was a lot of ways of scoring and de-scoring the 2x ball... a few in particular were very good at it...

with the 2x ball thrown into an oppeonets net could be CRITICAL in the begining/middle of the match, where the other team is just starting to get thier small balls into their coralls... capping then would make 1 less goal to shoot at, and if you take out the stationary goal, and THEN take thier small goal to your end... it could make it very hard to score period...

It would make it hard to score..But again you still want them to score..It's a fine balance and that's what makes this years game so challenging and fun. I look forward to see how everyone attacks this problem and how it works out in the end. We will find out soon enough.

[Tuba4]

Regarding the issue of goaltending while removing the doubler ball....

Remember what goaltending commonly means. In the basketball sense, it means interfering with a ball that would have otherwise gone in. If a robot is hit with a 5 pt ball when in the process of removing the 2X ball, I would suggest that should not be goaltending. If the robot had not been there, the 2X ball would still be in place and the 5 pt ball would not have been able to score.

Capping however is just the opposite. If you are placing the 2X ball and are hit with a 5 pt ball, that may or may not be goaltending, depending on whether the 5 pt ball would have gone in if the robot was not there.

Think of this in a similar fashion as the hanging ruling. That is, if the vertical bar was not present, would the robot still be hanging?

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Tuba4

Regarding the issue of goaltending while removing the doubler ball....

Remember what goaltending commonly means. In the basketball sense, it means interfering with a ball that would have otherwise gone in. If a robot is hit with a 5 pt ball when in the process of removing the 2X ball, I would suggest that should not be goaltending. If the robot had not been there, the 2X ball would still be in place and the 5 pt ball would not have been able to score.

Capping however is just the opposite. If you are placing the 2X ball and are hit with a 5 pt ball, that may or may not be goaltending, depending on whether the 5 pt ball would have gone in if the robot was not there.

Good point about the fact that the 2x ball would still be in the goal, therefore, should it be considered goaltending. I'm pretty sure that the Q/A answer said that unintentional goaltending, including capping and uncapping, will be considered goaltending.
HOWEVER, after doing some human player testing the past few days, it is still possible to score the small balls in a goal even if there is a 2x ball on top. It's not easy if the poles are spread out, but it's still possible. So taking that into account, I think regardless, they would count it goaltending if the small ball comes anywhere close to going in the goal (stationary or mobile) - and you have your robot arm attached to the 2x ball. I suppose if you're poised ready to grab it, but not yet in the way of a shooter to interfere, that would not be goaltending...

[Heretic121]

ok... i jujst thought of this... IF the 2x ball is capped... and a robot goes up to try to take it out from the FRONT of the stationary goal, and when its arm is going up, and a HP has the acuracy to hit the robots arm... will it be goaltending... BECAUSE the 2x is still in the goal, its almost IMPOSSIBLE to score more small balls on top of it... so anyone have a clue on the ruling here!?! lol

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Heretic121

ok... i jujst thought of this... IF the 2x ball is capped... and a robot goes up to try to take it out from the FRONT of the stationary goal, and when its arm is going up, and a HP has the acuracy to hit the robots arm... will it be goaltending... BECAUSE the 2x is still in the goal, its almost IMPOSSIBLE to score more small balls on top of it... so anyone have a clue on the ruling here!?! lol

my opinion...I would still say goaltending. You did say it was ALMOST impossible.. which means, it's still possible to make the goal. If there's any possibility at all that the ball could have gone in, then they should call it goaltending.

[ngreen]

I'd say this ruling is on the refs. It could be different from regional to regional and it might not always be perfect, definitely in the eyes of 2 teams. If you've watched basketball fouls are called by the ref's discretion and I think this is the case in the game this year. You will just have to live with the ref's decisions..They are only human. (has an idea)-- Robotic refs for a robotic competition, think of the chaos.

[psychoCHIPMUNKK]

Send it through the Q&A system, and see what FIRST has to say about our little dilemma.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by psychoCHIPMUNKK

Send it through the Q&A system, and see what FIRST has to say about our little dilemma.

From the Q/A system:
Section: 4.4.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/13/2004
Q: If a team is attempting to uncap a goal and the opposing alliance throws a small ball at the goal at the same moment and it bounces off the large ball while the robot was still holding it, would that team be considered to be goal-tending?

A: Yes, you are goal tending if the goal you are attempting to cap or uncap is one of your opponents goals and the large ball interferes with a thrown ball with the potential to go in the goal (referee's judgement). See the definition of GOAL TENDING.

So I would say they would probably call it goaltending, but as they say above - referee's judgement. Whether the goal is already capped or not, a small ball still has the potential to go in... If you have a field setup, try it and see if you get a ball to stay. I've been able to.

[Bob92]

Originally Posted by Ken Leung

I am only concerned in the situation where it satisfy the following condition:

1. GOALTENDING – A ROBOT cannot interfere with a SMALL ball on its downward flight toward a goal or within a goal.

2. <G21> While a ROBOT is holding a LARGE Ball, that ball will be considered an extension of the ROBOT.

3. <G20> ROBOTS cannot GOALTEND either the Mobile or Stationary Goals. If a ROBOT GOALTENDs or de- SCORES any SMALL ball, the referee will throw a green penalty flag and the opponent’s final score will be increased by twice the value of that SMALL ball.

Goaltending only happens when a ROBOT interfer with a small ball on its doward flight toward a goal or within a goal. When the robot is holding a large ball, the large ball is a part of the robot. When the robot ISN'T holding a large ball, it ISN'T a part of the robot.

and what if the robot holds a small ball in its gripper and blocks a shot with it?

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by Bob92

and what if the robot holds a small ball in its gripper and blocks a shot with it?

Assume goaltending... Doesn't matter whether your robot interferes or any ball your holding interferes with their thrown ball's downward flight with the potential to go in, I believe it's all considered goaltending.